Februaky G, 19U3.] 



SCIENCE. 



207 



European and Aiuerican botanists, is per- 

 haps too strictly contemporary for un- 

 biased judgment, but in any case the very 

 mass and rapidity of its accumulation is 

 highlj' significant. It is expressive of the 

 fact that a large contingent of young and 

 progressive botanists are reaching out far 

 beyond the bounds of systematic botany 

 on the one hand and the limitations of the 

 laboratorj' on the other and ai-e finding 

 abundant opportunity for productive work. 

 Without at present referring to others 

 of these more specifically, I gladly pause 

 to do honor to the memory of the great 

 man M'ho, after some 'forty years of so- 

 journ and wanderings' through the state 

 of Alabama, presented three years ago his 

 final contribution to the plant life of that 

 state.* He Avas seldom seen in gather- 

 ings of botanists, and I have heard him 

 lament his lack of training such as it is 

 the fashion now to give, biit he had more 

 than the wisdom of the schools, and per- 

 haps studied plant relations more effec- 

 tually because of his comparative freedom 

 from their traditions. Certain it is that 

 his 'Plant Life of Alabama' has come to 

 us as a noteworthy and acceptable con- 

 tribution. Through his and similar labors, 

 worthy, if time permitted, of special men- 

 tion and discussion, the time is drawing 

 nearer when we shall have the data for a 

 satisfactory comparative study of the phy- 

 togeography of the whole world. 



IIow shall such an end be attained and 

 how can present methods be improved so 

 as to hasten the desired consummation? 

 Surely not, in the first place, by limiting 

 or diverting into other directions the pres- 

 ent output of phji;ogeographical contribu- 

 tions. All of this and much more is 

 needed. The data for general conclusions 

 are all too slow in coming in. This dots 

 not mean, however, that the scattering 



* Mohr, ' Plant Life of Alabama,' ' Cont. U. S. 

 Nat. Herb.,' VI., 1901. 



observations of every summer cruise, with 

 half-baked notions of the 'reasons of 

 things, ' need be inflicted on the long-suf- 

 fering readers of botanical literature. 



There must be higher ideals, and only 

 those who have studied, year after year, 

 a limited area and have watched the suc- 

 cessive changes that a few seasons bring 

 can quite appreciate what patience and 

 labor the maintenance of such ideals in- 

 volves. 



The accumulation and expression of 

 facts as they really are should take, as it 

 seems to me, nine tenths, possibly ninety- 

 nine one hundredths, of the time that is 

 being given to ecological work. Hypoth- 

 eses are fascinating, but we have all erxed, 

 perhaps, in demanding that those who 

 busy themselves with such observations 

 shall show us promptly their bearing on 

 a theory of the universe. At present it 

 is really the main business of the ecological 

 student to ascertain and record fully, defi- 

 nitely, perfectly and for all time the facts. 

 He is not bound to tell us all their mean- 

 ing, much as we would like to know; and 

 furthermore, a fact once established is just 

 as good a fact and just as likely to have 

 an important bearing if it is ascertained 

 in a field or garden, in the depths of the 

 Dismal Swamp or in the Sahara, as in a 

 university laboratory. It is just as well 

 for science that Gregor Mendel was work:- 

 ing out of doors forty years ago, perhaps 

 even better than if he had known more 

 fully the significance of his own work and 

 had abandoned the field for the laboratory 

 and the microscope. We need to honor 

 more than we do the man who knows how 

 to see living things without complicated 

 apparatus, and we need, cheerfully and 

 without apology to ourselves or others, to 

 give full days of active toil to learning and 

 telling what is. It is far more difficult — 

 I speak from personal experience— after 

 these years of laboratory supremacy, to 



